Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Razzy.org monkey trial
When I wrote this past weekend's post about my planned Sarah Palin Halloween costume, I didn't expect to get that many comments, if any at all. Who really cares what my Halloween costume is beyond a couple "oh, ha ha, you're pretending that gross dog of yours is a baby with Downs syndrome" quips? Therefore, I was surprised when the comment section blew up with readers hotly debating the merits of evolution versus creationism. The back-and-forth is getting a little heated, so I figured it was high time I stepped into the fray. Besides, if you want to know about evolution from the top down, there's nobody better to ask than me. I'm one of the most highly evolved human beings the world has ever seen. This is true, and you'll find diagrams like the one below in most reputable biology textbooks. Look it up!
The comment that started all this was by the ever-wily "anonymous." Actually, it was a couple of anonymous comments, the first one suggesting that I shouldn't be so happy about voting for McCain because he's a dick and because he represents "extremists who want to ban books and teach creationism in public schools." This baited some anonymous creationist, who responded with the spark that ignited the powder keg:
Why is teaching creationism extremist? It takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
My buddy Morrissey'sHair vehemently disagreed with this, and proceeded to set it off with some of his patented comment page bitchery. Some other people got in on the action, and I have to say I can't blame them. The above comment makes no sense whatsoever to me, along with some of the quips this person has since posted, such as "I beleive [sic] there is more evidence for a Creator (not throwing religion around here) than there is for the evolution 'theory'" and "there is more proof for creation than evolution."
Before I get into why I think the theory of evolution is correct, however, I would like to note that I am also a creationist. I believe in God, and that this God created the heaven and the earth and the birds and the bees and all that trash. However, I don't believe that God did all this in 6 24-hour days and then took a day off exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. I am well aware that the Bible (or any other account of divine creation from other faiths) is not intended as a scientific text, and that the whole Adam and Eve business is a myth to explain a religious truth (God's omnipotence and creative power) rather than an accurate account of how the whole creation business went down. For this reason, I have never found my creationist beliefs as a Catholic to contradict my understanding of evolution as a fundamental principle of biology as a professional scientist. Belief in God is inherently a matter of faith, since God wouldn't be God if you could prove his existence or otherwise understand him by our imperfect human means. Therefore, if you believe in God, you can't prove anything about what he gets up to, and you'd be an ignorant moron to try and take some four millenia-old Hebrew mythology and try to spin it as credible evidence capable of proving or disproving any scientific theory. Creationism is an inherently unprovable belief, while the science that yielded the theory of evolution is a method for answering questions through experimentation and reason. Because reason and faith operate within different realms, I have never thought that creationism contradicted or disputed evolution, and I do not think they should even be discussed in the same conversation.
That said, the unfortunate proliferation of slow-witted, excessively religious idiots in this country have somehow convinced everyone that creationism, despite being entirely rooted in faith (which is by definition irrational), is a scientifically legitimate alternative theory to evolution. I don't care what faith your creation narrative of choice is based on; believing in a divine creator just because it suits your individual spiritual beliefs is a theory which cannot be proven or even tested experimentally, and thus has no business in a debate about biology in the first place. I think that the creationist movement has illustrated this by going out of their way to give "creationism" the trappings of science. I don't care if it's called "intelligent design;" if it's based on the notion that God is somehow involved, it's not scientific and has no business being described as such, much less taught in science classes. If you're going to teach "creationism" as legitimate science, then how do you even decide which creation story to go with? Who is to say there is any more proof backing the Judeo-Christian version of things than that earth was a chick named Gaia who banged a sky-dude named Uranus and begat the Titans? The fact is that the only "proof" behind any tale of divine creation is the conviction of the faithful who subscribe to that particular mythology and their selectively chosen claims about pseudoscientific instances of evolution being contradicted that only serve to illustrate their ignorance of biology.
I've noticed that the creationist crew likes to point out that evolution is a "theory," not a fact, and has busted out with a bunch of supposed "evidence" about how evolution contradicts nature. For example, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. For those of you who are rusty on your high school chemistry, let me remind you that this is also known as the law of entropy, or the notion that all ordered systems proceed toward disorder. The creationists argue that since Darwinism mandates beings evolving to a "higher" or "better" state of being, this can't be consistent with our understanding of entropy. However, this argument ignores the molecular basis for evolution, which is genetic mutation. As a commenter correctly pointed out, this is a random process, both in terms of how mutation is generated and the environmental conditions that lead to specific mutations being selected. Now that we have the technology available to sequence and apply bioinformatics to entire genomes, we can trace specific genetic changes between evolutionary relatives. For example, we can use sophisticated analytical techniques to mine sequence data and determine roughly when the human lineage diverged from the common ancestor we share with our closest primate relative, the chimpanzee. Suggesting that evolution has a "goal" to somehow result in a "higher" or "better" being demonstrates nothing save ignorance about the molecular basis of life. But just in case it isn't enough to point out that the old "second law of thermodynamics" attempt at disproving evolution is a bust, I should point out that a proper application of scientific fundamentals also negates creationism. The laws of conservation of mass and energy essentially demonstrate that something (whether matter or energy, and life certainly constitutes BOTH) cannot be created from nothing, which is inconveniently THE essential feature of any creationist hypothesis. I suppose it is convenient supporting a theory that allows the most fundamental principles of any branch of science to be violated due to the presence of an omnipotent God.
Another pseudoscientific argument I expected to come up in this debate is the issue of "microevolution," and sure enough, I was not disappointed. The concept of "microevolution" has been developed by the so-called "intelligent design" community to discount experimental data supporting evolution. Microevolution is the notion that changes occur at or below the species level (such as phenotypic differences in dog breeds or pathogenic bacteria evolving drug resistance due to antibiotic overuse), but not at a larger level (such as dinosaurs evolving into modern-day birds). The only difference is the time scale, as over millions versus thousands of years, organisms accumulate more and more mutations distinguishing them from their evolutionary progenitors. I suspect what the creationists like to call "macroevolution"–or distinction at higher taxonomic levels–will be proven eventually. The only difference between genetic variations distinguishing an eagle from a hawk compared to those distinguishing a velociraptor from any extant bird are the cumulation of many mutations over time. Unfortunately, we can't extract high-quality DNA from dinosaurs to prove they are the "macro"-evolutionary ancestors of birds with existing technology. As soon as we do have that technology, I expect that the fossil record will be linked by molecular means rather than the simple linking of common phenotypic traits. I find the evidence of "microevolution" extremely convincing that ALL evolution proceeds in this manner from personal experience.
I work on RNA viruses, which are probably the fastest-evolving almost-organisms known to science (viruses are "almost-organisms" since they are not technically alive, as they can't reproduce without a host cell). RNA viruses have an incredibly high mutation rate, because the enzymes that copy their genomes have an incredibly high error rate. These enzymes, known as RNA polymerases, make an error in replicating genomes 10 times more frequently than DNA polymerases. Also, unlike DNA polymerases, they don't have reliable proofreading capabilities. Also, RNA viruses can reproduce in 6-12 hours, meaning that between their rapid generation time and high mutation rate, they can "evolve" right in your lab incubator. If I want to make a rhinovirus that grows well in mouse cells, for example, I can just culture rhinovirus in mouse cells over and over again. Eventually I will select variants which are adapted to growth in mouse cells, and in fact, I have...that's the basis of my entire doctoral thesis. The intelligent design people can call this, as well as similar variant selection strategies for bacteria and other rapidly dividing microbes, "microevolution" to dismiss it as an actual example supporting Darwin's theory. However, this is no different than evolution of larger organisms over longer periods of time. We can never see humans evolve into different species because our generation time spans decades rather than hours, and we are complex multicellular organisms that need to accumulate more mutations to display an obvious phenotype, much less one significant enough to be considered a divergent species. However, it happens the same way for humans, dinosaurs, whales, and anything else with a genome made of nucleic acids that it does with RNA viruses. I don't see how any reasonable, intelligent person can say that maybe "evolution" in the form of genotypic mutations resulting in the selection of particular phenotypic variants more adapted to growth in their environmental conditions occurs only in the microbial world, but every other living thing on earth was created on days 4-6 of the Genesis narrative.
I doubt that I've convinced anyone on the merits of the "theory" of evolution who was already determined that creationism is more reasonable, more probable, or less extremist. In fact, as I've been working on this post, the debate has raged on and culminated in the creationist implying that all the evolutionists are going to Hell. While that's not explicitly stated, I certainly know a veiled burn-in-Hell threat when I see one:
Oh course there's really only one way to test this theory, and we ALL will test it one day, die. Of course if I'm wrong, what's my loss, I'm dead. If you're wrong well...You better be 100% sure you're right, you have much more to lose than I do.
One thing I am 100% sure about is that our death and ascension to the afterlife is a pretty shitty test of which theory is right. I have no idea whether or not anyone gets filled in on how God rolls with running the life game once they die. Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that using what I consider our God-given reason to accept a theory that has been extensively proven by a number of experiments and observations is something meriting eternal damnation. For one thing, as I said before, I am a creationist who ALSO fully subscribes to the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't exclude divine creation; it just excludes the six day creation theory. In fact, the more I know about evolution, the more impressed I am at how brilliant God's creation actually is. If anything, I think evolution supports the existence of God more than excludes or denies it, so I hardly think it's something worthy of a neverending trip to perdition. Of course, in my case, this is probably a moot point since St. Peter's just going to take a gander at my file and send me straight to the "Down" escalator, but I doubt it's going to be because I think evolution is a valid and convincing explanation for the wonders of the living world. That's one thing I have a certain measure of faith in.
Labels: Dear God, nerd alert, Razzyphiles, retard rage, science
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
For the record, I never said McCain is a dick. He is a lot more thoughtful and reasonable than the base of his party. That is why he chose a book-burning, creationist, "pray away the gay" pitbull as his running mate: to convince his base there will be a sufficient amount of hysterical fundamentalist zealotry on the ticket.
# posted by 
: 10/01/2008 8:00 AM
: 10/01/2008 8:00 AM
Excuse me, but McCain IS A DICK! Is an intellectual lightweight who has gotten by for decades on his service record. It should be known, btw, that sons of admirals who finish two up from the cellar at the Academy are hardly considered heroes by their enlisted counterparts. And getting captured....here comes the UNPATRIOTIC PART, Mr. Creationist...doesn't prove much more than physical toughness. I mean, since when does a stretch in any prison instantly qualify one to pontificate on the economy, foist on the American people a regime of deregulation, and jingoistic foreign policy. All that and his undeniable arrogance. Did you see the way he patronized Obama with his "he doesn't understand" bullshit, and his constant eye rolls? I say, the most infuriating combo is a arrogant dolt. And why he would add a second to his ticket is astounding. Long and short of it is that John McCain is a dick, an arrogant, dull, bellicose dick.
# posted by : 10/01/2008 12:16 PM
: 10/01/2008 12:16 PM
As someone who worked in the Senate for several years and had numerous personal interactions with John McCain, I can say unequivocally that he is not dolt. You can disagree with his positions on all manner of issues, but you can not say that he has a poor command or understanding of policy. And while you may not accept hearsay as evidence to his intellectual bona fides, I can assure you that the Navy does not allow simpletons to fly their incredibly complicated and expensive planes, command their air wings, or attend the National War College, regardless of who their father may be.
As to what being a POW proves, it is this: the man's commitment to his country is far greater than most of his political counterparts. He was willing to forgo the privilege of his birthright to spend 20 years of his life doing incredibly dangerous work, nearly being killed several times and enduring unimaginable suffering. As Bill Clinton said, "he has given as much as you can to this country without getting killed".
We get it - you want Obama to win. But at least try to elevate the debate above petty, unsubstantiated insults.
As to what being a POW proves, it is this: the man's commitment to his country is far greater than most of his political counterparts. He was willing to forgo the privilege of his birthright to spend 20 years of his life doing incredibly dangerous work, nearly being killed several times and enduring unimaginable suffering. As Bill Clinton said, "he has given as much as you can to this country without getting killed".
We get it - you want Obama to win. But at least try to elevate the debate above petty, unsubstantiated insults.
# posted by : 10/01/2008 1:40 PM
: 10/01/2008 1:40 PM
How can someone who has never enlisted in shit talk about what enlisted members respect in their officers. What enlisted members really respect is someone who doesn't play politics and calls it like it is. Enlist in the service hotlawyer, then you can open your yap.
# posted by : 10/01/2008 2:35 PM
: 10/01/2008 2:35 PM
Copy that. When I served, I don't remember caring about my CO's standing at the Academy or OCS. What I did care about was whether or not he was competent, that he took care of his men, and that he lead from the front. Looking at John McCain's service record and his record in the Senate, its clear that he was a high-speed hard-charger, and that's what matters. Those that have not served will never understand; watching "Saving Private Ryan" or a couple of hours of the Military channel does not make you an expert on military culture. It is unconscionable that someone would even attempt to assail McCain's service.
# posted by : 10/01/2008 4:34 PM
: 10/01/2008 4:34 PM
McCain suffered two engine failures that led to crashes. His third bird was blown-up while on the deck of the Forrestal after being hit by an errant rocket fired from another jet. His forth bird was shot down, leading to his extended stay in Hanoi. He was never found at fault for any of the loses, and all incidents nearly killed him. If he's got 9 lives, he's down to 5 (though he probably spent a couple while tearing around Annapolis).
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_mccain_crash_five_planes_did_he.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_mccain_crash_five_planes_did_he.html
# posted by : 10/01/2008 5:10 PM
: 10/01/2008 5:10 PM
I feel like my original point has gotten lost. It was never my intent to attack Senator McCain personally. I think he's way off on most of the issues, but I'll leave it at that. Character assassination gets us nowhere.
My point was simply, Don't you feel at all awkward about giving your support to a brand that gets so much mileage out of bashing gays, attacking science, etc.?
I would never expect you to apologize for what you believe in. But I would have thought you'd feel more strongly about those parts of the Republican platform that you don't believe in.
My point was simply, Don't you feel at all awkward about giving your support to a brand that gets so much mileage out of bashing gays, attacking science, etc.?
I would never expect you to apologize for what you believe in. But I would have thought you'd feel more strongly about those parts of the Republican platform that you don't believe in.
# posted by : 10/01/2008 6:16 PM
: 10/01/2008 6:16 PM
I get it, anonymous posters, in your mind McCain's service is beyond reproach. That said, I've read that he actually crashed FIVE "incredibly complicated and expensive planes," while in the Navy. That certainly seems to imply that he did, indeed, receive some sort of special consideration vis a vie his lineage.
Also, this notion that "if you've never enlisted, you've no right to an informed opinion," is not only a logical fallacy, it's logically unsound. I've never visited Oklahoma and guess what? I'm not interested. Ditto with Mongolia, The Congo, etc. Simply serving in the military doesn't confer an exclusive license to opine on military matters anymore than my being an attorney gives me an exclusive right to criticize the Supreme Court.
And with regard to it being unconscionable to assail his service: I wonder, Anonymous, if you went along with the lies about John Kerry's service? Seems it's ok to assail service so long as you pull the red level in the voting booth each fall.
Frankly, my opinion on John McCain's service isn't the reason I find him an unworthy candidate for president. His positions on the war in Iraq, on the "Axis of Evil," on financial deregulation (oops, is it regulation, now), his choice of a homophobic rube for VP, etc., make it all too obvious.
Also, this notion that "if you've never enlisted, you've no right to an informed opinion," is not only a logical fallacy, it's logically unsound. I've never visited Oklahoma and guess what? I'm not interested. Ditto with Mongolia, The Congo, etc. Simply serving in the military doesn't confer an exclusive license to opine on military matters anymore than my being an attorney gives me an exclusive right to criticize the Supreme Court.
And with regard to it being unconscionable to assail his service: I wonder, Anonymous, if you went along with the lies about John Kerry's service? Seems it's ok to assail service so long as you pull the red level in the voting booth each fall.
Frankly, my opinion on John McCain's service isn't the reason I find him an unworthy candidate for president. His positions on the war in Iraq, on the "Axis of Evil," on financial deregulation (oops, is it regulation, now), his choice of a homophobic rube for VP, etc., make it all too obvious.
# posted by : 10/01/2008 7:27 PM
: 10/01/2008 7:27 PM
PS: The Texas Air National Guard allowed George Bush, Jr. to fly their planes, so there goes any notion that you've got to possess uncommon intellect to get behind the stick.
PPS: My position on his being a dullard comes from WATCHING AND LISTENING TO HIM TALK. Or do you have to be in the military to have an opinion of discerning the English language?
PPS: My position on his being a dullard comes from WATCHING AND LISTENING TO HIM TALK. Or do you have to be in the military to have an opinion of discerning the English language?
# posted by : 10/01/2008 7:37 PM
: 10/01/2008 7:37 PM
you are hot. how bout a new titty shot for breast cancer awareness month?
# posted by : 10/01/2008 8:51 PM
: 10/01/2008 8:51 PM
The ability to reason so is a beautiful spandrel. Well done, razzy, whoever you are.
# posted by : 10/01/2008 10:57 PM
: 10/01/2008 10:57 PM
Where do I begin, Hotlawyer? I wish you would be a bit more concise and focused in your posts. Your "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to debate makes for a tedious discussion, but here goes nothing:
1. You should stop relying on viral emails; see the above link regarding McCain's flying record.
2. With regards to his lineage, it did impact his life on at least one occasion. During his incarceration, his Vietnamese captors offered him quarter because of who his father was. He rejected it, citing honor and the military code of conduct for prisoners of war. Because of his choice, he endured two additional years of torture and solitary confinement. Would a man used to the benefits of privilege choose to do such a thing?
3. No one said you don't have a right to an opinion; we who have served simply question how "informed" it could possibly be. Life in the Armed Forces is a unique experience that can not be replicated in civilian life. As such, you made a claim without having any real experience or demonstrable evidence, and we'd like to know how you came up with it and why you believe it to be true. To wit, while I am entitled to opinions about the Supreme Court, I wouldn't dare to claim that they are as informed or correct as any you might have. Why? Because I'm not a lawyer. I suspect if I tried to debate you regarding the finer points of law, you'd quickly point out this fact.
4. I thought the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry was disgusting. If you'd bother to do some research, you'll find John McCain found it detestable as well.
5. Finally, opinions rationally formed. I can respect them, if not disagree with them.
6. The Texas Air National Guard is not Naval Aviation. While I'm sure many men proudly served in the Texas Guard, George Bush is not one of them. He never saw combat, and it is unclear as to whether or not he completed training. Further, you are employing a "logical fallacy" by claiming that one example of a intellectually deficient trainee proves that the position requires no intelligence. You took the LSAT - extrapolating generalities from one example is the most obvious and easily-identifiable logic flaws tested.
7. John McCain may not be exceptionally eloquent, but only the most fervent demagogues have claimed his public statements expose an ineptitude. This claim has more to do with DNC fantasy than reality, and the fact that it hasn't stuck despite overt media bias suggests just how baseless it is.
1. You should stop relying on viral emails; see the above link regarding McCain's flying record.
2. With regards to his lineage, it did impact his life on at least one occasion. During his incarceration, his Vietnamese captors offered him quarter because of who his father was. He rejected it, citing honor and the military code of conduct for prisoners of war. Because of his choice, he endured two additional years of torture and solitary confinement. Would a man used to the benefits of privilege choose to do such a thing?
3. No one said you don't have a right to an opinion; we who have served simply question how "informed" it could possibly be. Life in the Armed Forces is a unique experience that can not be replicated in civilian life. As such, you made a claim without having any real experience or demonstrable evidence, and we'd like to know how you came up with it and why you believe it to be true. To wit, while I am entitled to opinions about the Supreme Court, I wouldn't dare to claim that they are as informed or correct as any you might have. Why? Because I'm not a lawyer. I suspect if I tried to debate you regarding the finer points of law, you'd quickly point out this fact.
4. I thought the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry was disgusting. If you'd bother to do some research, you'll find John McCain found it detestable as well.
5. Finally, opinions rationally formed. I can respect them, if not disagree with them.
6. The Texas Air National Guard is not Naval Aviation. While I'm sure many men proudly served in the Texas Guard, George Bush is not one of them. He never saw combat, and it is unclear as to whether or not he completed training. Further, you are employing a "logical fallacy" by claiming that one example of a intellectually deficient trainee proves that the position requires no intelligence. You took the LSAT - extrapolating generalities from one example is the most obvious and easily-identifiable logic flaws tested.
7. John McCain may not be exceptionally eloquent, but only the most fervent demagogues have claimed his public statements expose an ineptitude. This claim has more to do with DNC fantasy than reality, and the fact that it hasn't stuck despite overt media bias suggests just how baseless it is.
# posted by : 10/02/2008 1:15 AM
: 10/02/2008 1:15 AM
Thank-you Mr. Previous anonymous writer for your last post. In reading these different opinions my blood boils every time I read hotlawyers ignorant posts on the military. As a previous enlisted member, now commissioned officer, I find your last post right on the mark. Hotlwayer is proving to us all that there is some truth to all those lawyer jokes. My favorite: How can you tell if your attorney is using Viagra? Answer: He keeps gets taller!
# posted by : 10/02/2008 7:01 AM
: 10/02/2008 7:01 AM
Glad we all agree that the Swift Boat ads against Kerry were unfair. Now how about the McCain ad claiming that Obama supported "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners? The bill actually provided for age-appropriate info to help kids avoid sex predators. Unfortunately McCain, who did show some integrity in the early 2000s, has allowed his campaign to get as sleazy as Bush's.
# posted by : 10/02/2008 8:54 AM
: 10/02/2008 8:54 AM
And congratulations to you and thank you for your service, Anonymous Mustang! As for Hotlawyer, he's an example of how seemingly rational, bright people lose all composure and sense when discussing politics. I don't have a problem with opposing political ideologies, I just wish people were intellectually honest when discussing. Don't like the Republican platform? Fine. But attempting to personally assail an honorable man like John McCain so discredits you that many will discard your positions out of hand.
# posted by : 10/02/2008 1:02 PM
: 10/02/2008 1:02 PM
To all anonymous posters: It's becoming increasingly evident that you're falling for the same sort of logical impropriety with which you accuse me. Insofar as I have been criticized for losing all sense of reason when discussing politics, you seem to be bereft of critical judgment when the person at issue has a DD-214. It's simply preposterous to maintain that those persons who have served, or are currently serving, are ipso facto beyond reproach. Whether you choose to dismiss his reckless flying as a viral email, of excuse his judgment regarding Sarah Palin as "appealing to the base (read, base instincts of the red staters), certain facts abide about McCain and his credibility. He was a member of the Keating Five, for christ's sake (shouldn't that fact alone give you pause when handing over his party's most recent economic disaster?). He has displayed callous and downright contemptuous behavior directed at Barack Obama (fellow member of the senate) despite enjoying the wide latitude he's afforded by everyone to act/think/speak as a reactionary buffoon because of his service. So, vote for McCain. It never once occurred to me that I would change anyone's mind. In the same vein as my critics, I was hoping to elevate the conversation about him from his POW experience to his actual person, and how that informs his judgment. But, as usual, some people can't see past the stripes on one's shoulder.
# posted by : 10/02/2008 1:21 PM
: 10/02/2008 1:21 PM
Whether or not you think that a person's military service record is some sort of unassailable measure of his/her character, to say that one can't criticize McCain's service record for political reasons is intellectually dishonest. Especially in light of the fact that he trots it out every day as evidence of his supposed presidential bona fides. Please. He opened the door; he can't now say that his service record is off limits. Seems to me that he's the one cheapening his experience in the service to a vulgar degree--using his time as a POW trump Obama's patriotism or to prove that he "puts America first". Pure rubbish. For a guy who's repeatedly fancied himself a maverick and a patriot, his adoption of an evangelical hate-monger as VP is either proof that he's sold himself to the Republican base or that the freedoms that he was supposedly championing and defending while crashing airplanes, at least in his mind, only apply to white, Christian boors living perpetually in fear of The War on Terror.
Called in the reinforcements, Hotlawyer? I can see the email to "Morrissey's Hair": "Help, bro! They're ganging up on me!"
As for your post, nice straw-man argument, but I'm not biting. No one said that John McCain "is beyond reproach", nor that you couldn't question his policy. What many have been saying is that any attempt to discredit his service - as you tried to do beginning in sentence two of your original post - simply doesn't hold water. "There's just no 'there' there". And while you're a sore loser, you did conceded as much in your last post when you (finally) began to focus your critiques on substantive issues. On those matters, I won't debate, because, as you pointed out, it wouldn't change anyone's opinion.
As for your post, nice straw-man argument, but I'm not biting. No one said that John McCain "is beyond reproach", nor that you couldn't question his policy. What many have been saying is that any attempt to discredit his service - as you tried to do beginning in sentence two of your original post - simply doesn't hold water. "There's just no 'there' there". And while you're a sore loser, you did conceded as much in your last post when you (finally) began to focus your critiques on substantive issues. On those matters, I won't debate, because, as you pointed out, it wouldn't change anyone's opinion.
# posted by : 10/02/2008 2:14 PM
: 10/02/2008 2:14 PM
I find this entire line of comments so analogous to every political discussion I have with anyone under the age of 40 in the last 5 years. As a 39 year old conservative (not a Republican, a conservative) I find myself lumped in with Republicans and called everything from a Nazi (my personal favorite) to a gay basher, racist, etc etc etc. Just last week I was having a spirited discussion about politics with a very liberal friend. The conversation was pleasant and we discussed our views on several topics, when out of nowhere another friend’s girlfriend came into the room to assault my positions. Her opening salvo went something like “you’re probably one of those assholes that believe in drilling in the arctic". This has happened so many times in the last few years. In a public setting, whenever I admit to being a conservative, the name-calling and stereotyping begins. The liberal left seems so angry and belligerent these days and I don't get why they can't have reasonable calm conversation! As evidenced by HotLawyer's remarks referring to McCain as
“A dick, an arrogant, dull, bellicose dick." I really would have expected more from such an educated person.
If you really hate Bush, McCain and all things Republican, use the mechanism we have in this country to change that, and stop the Bill Maher style name-calling and denigration of those whose ideas differ from yours. If your candidate doesn't win, then YOU and your party have not done enough to enlighten everyone as to why their ideas are so much better.
“A dick, an arrogant, dull, bellicose dick." I really would have expected more from such an educated person.
If you really hate Bush, McCain and all things Republican, use the mechanism we have in this country to change that, and stop the Bill Maher style name-calling and denigration of those whose ideas differ from yours. If your candidate doesn't win, then YOU and your party have not done enough to enlighten everyone as to why their ideas are so much better.
# posted by : 10/06/2008 1:33 PM
: 10/06/2008 1:33 PM
What I find interesting Mr. Marshall, is that for all of your talk about the ills of name-calling and personal attacks on individuals holding different political views than one’s self, the only people you called out for doing so happen to be people who have different political beliefs than you. You specifically mention HotLawyer’s “McCain is a dick” comment but make no mention of the anonymous posters’ attacks on him. Cracking lawyer jokes, implying that HotLawyer is weak and incapable of defending his own positions so he had to get Morrissey’shair to help him, and calling him a “sore loser” are pretty blatant personal attacks. There are also many less obvious attacks on him throughout the posts. The reference to him as “seemingly bright” and your own, “I really would have expected more from such an educated person” are perfect example of this. Rather than just making your point about personal attacks in political debates, you go on to personally attack him by calling his intelligence into question. You can argue that you did no such thing if you want, but that is exactly what your statement does. Further, there are a multitude of media figures that engage in name-calling during political discourse. But you chose only to mention Bill Maher, a self-described liberal, by name. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter style name-calling would have worked at least well in making the point. You claim that you “don’t get why they (the liberal left) can’t have calm conversation”. Maybe, Mr. Marshall, the “liberal left” is “so angry and belligerent these days” and can’t have engage in pleasant political debates with you because they find the insincerity of your arguments and the hypocrisy you practice frustrating.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 10/09/2008 3:13 PM
: 10/09/2008 3:13 PM Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
